Also have a look at some recent papers of Corvaja and Zannier.
–
Felipe VolochJul 14 '11 at 20:58

2

@Felipe: If $b=a^2$, then the gcd is just $a^{2^n}-1$, so the problem becomes easier since Jordan is only asking about the support problem, i.e., the set of primes dividing at least one number in a sequence. And of course, in this easier case, Bang (before Zsigmondy) proved that all but finitely many terms in the sequence $a^N-1$ have a primitive prime divisor. So Support($a^{N_i}-1$) is infinite for any increasing sequence of integers $N_1,N_2,\dots$.
–
Joe SilvermanJul 14 '11 at 22:39

2

Drat, I was kind of hoping Joe would know the answer to this one.
–
JSEJul 14 '11 at 22:43

1

Hah! My initial impression after thinking about it for a few minutes is that it looks very hard. Even $\gcd(a^n-1,b^n-1)$ is hard, e.g., not known it equals 1 infinitely often (assuming $a$ and $b$ mult. indep.). Of course, the support problem for $\gcd(a^n-1,b^n-1)$ is trivial by Fermat's little theorem. But $2^n$ is such a sparse sequence, I don't see where to begin. Here's a question: Is the support of $\gcd(a^{n^2}-1,b^{n^2}-1)$ infinite? Follows from "infinitely many primes of the form $n^2+1$", but do we have the tools to prove this unconditionally?
–
Joe SilvermanJul 14 '11 at 23:18

3 Answers
3

For $p$ prime, $p\mid a^{2^n}-1$ for some $n$ is equivalent to $\mathrm{ord}_{\mathbb{F}_p^\times}(a)$ being a power of $2$.

The probability for a random element of the multiplicative group $\mathbb{F}_p^\times$ to have order a power of $2$ is $\frac{2^n}{p-1}$ where $n$ is chosen maximal among the natural numbers $m$ with $2^m \mid p-1$.

A naive (hopefully not too naive) heuristic for the expected number of primes dividing both $a^{2^n}-1$ and $b^{2^n}-1$ for some $n$ is $-$ assuming that both conditions are independent:

For the approximation the heuristics is used that the probability for a number $m$ to be prime is about $\frac{1}{\log m}$. As the latter sum diverges one would expect that infinitely many primes divide your greatest common divisor for some $n$.

Boiling this line of thought down even further: we expect (do we?) that there are infinitely many primes of the form $p=3\cdot 2^n+1$, and the "random element" heuristic above predicts that $1/9$ of these primes will eventually divide both $a^{2^n}-1$ and $b^{2^n}-1$; this already gives infinitely many primes dividing these gcds.
–
Greg MartinJul 22 '11 at 22:47

A comment on one of Joe's questions: Let $B$ be any real number. It is known unconditionally that there are infinitely many $m$ for which $\phi(m)$ is a square and for which the smallest prime factor of $m$ exceeds $B$. One can even take $m$ as a product of two primes here; see, e.g., article 4 from

Of course, each term is divisible by the previous term. A slightly harder, but maybe more natural, question, would be the set of primes dividing some term in the sequence $\gcd(2^{2^n}+1,3^{2^n}+1)$. More generally, some subsequence of $\gcd(\Phi_N(2),\Phi_N(3))$, where~$\Phi_N$ is the cyclotomic polynomial. In this case, we're taking $N=2^n$ for $n=1,2,3,...$.
–
Joe SilvermanJul 15 '11 at 0:59

It seems that $\gcd(2^{2^n}+1,3^{2^n}+1)$ is 5 for $n=1$ and 1 for $2\le n\le20$.
–
Gerry MyersonJul 15 '11 at 1:12

@Gerry: Do you want to conjecture it's 1 for all $n\ge2$? Here's an amusing example. Consider the sequence $A_n=\gcd(2^n+3^n+1,2^n+7^n+2)$. I checked that $A_n=1$ for all $n\le5000$. Further, the support of the sequence $(A_n)$ contains no primes smaller than 5000. Challenge: Prove that $A_n=1$ for infinitely many $n$. I have no idea how to begin to attack this, nor the easier(?) case of a function field analogue over $\mathbb{C}[T]$. For $\mathbb{C}[T]$, Ailon and Rudnick prove (under suitable hypotheses) that $\gcd(a(T)^n-1,b(T)^n-1)=1$ for lots of $n$.
–
Joe SilvermanJul 15 '11 at 2:43

1

@Joe, I am far too timid to make a conjecture based on $2\le n\le20$. A bit closer to the ground, Ilan Vardi found $\gcd(n^7+19,(n+1)^7+19)=1$ for $n\lt8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433$ but the equality fails for the next $n$.
–
Gerry MyersonJul 15 '11 at 5:58